Implementation of a Standardized Tool for Root Cause Analysis Selection.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eric Wahlstedt, Brittany E Levy, Emma Scott, Wesley Stephens, Kristen E Fletcher, Andrew Harris
{"title":"Implementation of a Standardized Tool for Root Cause Analysis Selection.","authors":"Eric Wahlstedt, Brittany E Levy, Emma Scott, Wesley Stephens, Kristen E Fletcher, Andrew Harris","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study sought to determine if a standardized root cause analysis (RCA2) selection algorithm, developed by the Veterans Affairs, would select high-risk events for RCA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Physician-entered incident reports for all surgical service admissions and perioperative visits were queried over 12 months in the DATIX Clinical Incident Management System. Independent reviewers assigned potential harm and event frequency scores using an institutional scoring system and then calculated and rounded average scores. These were classified using RCA2 terminology (catastrophic, major, moderate, minor for harm; frequent, occasional, uncommon, remote for frequency). The scores were then evaluated with the standardized Safety Assessment Code Matrix (SAC) algorithm from the National Patient Safety Foundation's RCA2 guidelines to determine Potential Harm Scores. The SAC combines severity and probability to determine the necessity of conducting an RCA. Catastrophic and major high-frequency events (matrix score = 3) were classified as \"RCA recommended.\" The study then compared cases selected for RCAs using the updated RCA2 algorithm against cases selected using a current, institutional-specific RCA selection process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred four cases were reviewed, comprising 20 catastrophic, 48 major harm, 26 moderate harm, and 10 minor harm events. After removing 9 high-variance cases, our institution's current selection process selected 18 cases for RCAs, including 6/20 catastrophic, 8/39 major harm, and 4/36 moderate/minor harm events. Only 17.3% of cases had an RCA completed, while the standardized RCA2 algorithm recommended investigation for 56.7% of patient safety events, based on SAC Matrix scoring. Current RCA selection processes rendered 4 RCAs on low potential harm or low-frequency events, while 45 potential high-frequency, high potential harm events did not complete RCAs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Standardizing the selection of patient safety incidents for RCA using the RCA2 algorithm improves case identification based on the event frequency and potential harm score. Thus, this algorithm has the potential to advance patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001291","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to determine if a standardized root cause analysis (RCA2) selection algorithm, developed by the Veterans Affairs, would select high-risk events for RCA.

Methods: Physician-entered incident reports for all surgical service admissions and perioperative visits were queried over 12 months in the DATIX Clinical Incident Management System. Independent reviewers assigned potential harm and event frequency scores using an institutional scoring system and then calculated and rounded average scores. These were classified using RCA2 terminology (catastrophic, major, moderate, minor for harm; frequent, occasional, uncommon, remote for frequency). The scores were then evaluated with the standardized Safety Assessment Code Matrix (SAC) algorithm from the National Patient Safety Foundation's RCA2 guidelines to determine Potential Harm Scores. The SAC combines severity and probability to determine the necessity of conducting an RCA. Catastrophic and major high-frequency events (matrix score = 3) were classified as "RCA recommended." The study then compared cases selected for RCAs using the updated RCA2 algorithm against cases selected using a current, institutional-specific RCA selection process.

Results: One hundred four cases were reviewed, comprising 20 catastrophic, 48 major harm, 26 moderate harm, and 10 minor harm events. After removing 9 high-variance cases, our institution's current selection process selected 18 cases for RCAs, including 6/20 catastrophic, 8/39 major harm, and 4/36 moderate/minor harm events. Only 17.3% of cases had an RCA completed, while the standardized RCA2 algorithm recommended investigation for 56.7% of patient safety events, based on SAC Matrix scoring. Current RCA selection processes rendered 4 RCAs on low potential harm or low-frequency events, while 45 potential high-frequency, high potential harm events did not complete RCAs.

Conclusions: Standardizing the selection of patient safety incidents for RCA using the RCA2 algorithm improves case identification based on the event frequency and potential harm score. Thus, this algorithm has the potential to advance patient safety.

实施根源分析选择标准化工具。
目标:本研究旨在确定退伍军人事务部开发的标准化根本原因分析 (RCA2) 选择算法是否会选择高风险事件进行 RCA:本研究旨在确定退伍军人事务部开发的标准化根本原因分析 (RCA2) 选择算法能否选择高风险事件进行 RCA:在 DATIX 临床事件管理系统中查询了 12 个月内医生输入的所有外科入院和围手术期就诊的事件报告。独立审查员使用机构评分系统对潜在危害和事件频率进行评分,然后计算平均分并四舍五入。这些分数使用 RCA2 术语进行分类(伤害分为灾难性、重大、中度、轻微;频率分为频繁、偶尔、不常见、偏远)。然后使用国家患者安全基金会 RCA2 指南中的标准化安全评估代码矩阵 (SAC) 算法对这些分数进行评估,以确定潜在危害分数。SAC 结合严重性和概率来确定是否有必要进行 RCA。灾难性事件和重大高频事件(矩阵得分 = 3)被归类为 "建议进行 RCA"。然后,研究人员将使用最新 RCA2 算法选择进行 RCA 的案例与使用当前特定机构 RCA 选择流程选择的案例进行了比较:结果:共审查了 144 个病例,其中包括 20 个灾难性事件、48 个重大伤害事件、26 个中度伤害事件和 10 个轻微伤害事件。在剔除 9 个高变异病例后,本机构当前的选择流程选择了 18 个病例进行 RCA,其中灾难性事件 6/20、重大伤害事件 8/39、中度/轻度伤害事件 4/36。只有 17.3% 的病例完成了 RCA,而根据 SAC 矩阵评分,标准化 RCA2 算法建议对 56.7% 的患者安全事件进行调查。目前的 RCA 选择流程对低潜在危害或低频率事件进行了 4 次 RCA,而 45 次潜在的高频率、高潜在危害事件没有完成 RCA:结论:使用 RCA2 算法对患者安全事件进行 RCA 标准化选择,可提高基于事件频率和潜在危害评分的病例识别能力。因此,该算法有可能促进患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信